One of the strangest features of contemporary Iranian politics must surely be the reality that despite the concerted and successful effort to narrow the range of candidates allowed to run for various political offices, competition among individuals and groups has not only remained unabated, it has intensified. The elite jockeying that has taken place in the past few months, leading to the upcoming March 14 Majlis elections, is a good example of the competitive intensity that had come to characterize Iranian politics.
Ever since the assassination of Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri in February 2005, senior officials in the US have closely followed events in Lebanon. Given the number of official public statements made on Lebanon and the number of officials coming from all ranks (including high level security officials) who swarm in and out of Beirut on a regular basis, it would come as no surprise to learn that Lebanon is a priority on the agenda of this administration.
On January 3, 2008, Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah ‘Ali Khamene’i once again sought to remind domestic and foreign audiences about his stature in Tehran. Stating that “cutting off relations with the US” was one of the “principal policies” of the Iranian government, but that he would be the “first person to endorse these relations” if it benefited the Iranian people, Khamene’i secured news headlines.[1]
Introducation to Iran's March 14, 2008 Majlis Elections
Speaking of the need for an opposition party, Kemal Ataturk once said: “I do not want to be recorded in history as the man who bequeathed a tyranny.” These words could also be uttered by Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah ‘Ali Khamene’i. Yet, the legacy that ‘Ali Khamene’i will leave behind can perhaps best be described as a promenade of contradictory truths. Such contradictions are emblematic of the 8th round of Iranian parliamentary (Majlis) elections that are now upon us. It is true that the Iranian state employs a prodigious style of electoral engineering to regiment outcomes.
Pakistan has had so few national elections in its 60-year history that every exercise to elect the national Parliament is exceptional. These relatively rare events are not only a mechanism for effecting a change of government but are also a means for putting the political process back on the rails and redefining the provisions of the 1973 constitution, which has been shredded by four periods of martial law. General (retired) Pervez Musharraf has declared martial law twice, ironically once against his own government.
Pakistan faces a paradox. Most political observers believe that Pakistan urgently needs free, fair, and transparent elections, but none is convinced that the elections would usher in an era of participatory governance, internal harmony, and stability in the country.
Democratization in Morocco: Political Transition of a North African Kingdom
Mounia was in the midst of her PowerPoint presentation, held in the seminar room opposite the office of the Dean of the School of Humanities and Social Sciences (SHSS) at al-Akhawayn University in Ifrane (AUI). It was the last week of the Spring 2000 semester, the last meeting of the Capstone seminar on “Contemporary Morocco,” that Mounia, like all graduating seniors of the SHSS, had to pass in order to get her B.A.
Many Americans, Israelis, and Palestinians are convinced that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is intractable because neither side has abandoned the goal of defeating the other, and neither really believes in compromise. This is a myth.
Even the most skeptical of us would have to concede that things are better now than they were a few months ago, as they hasten to add that we have been here before and that this too shall pass.
Yes, things are better: Palestinian and Israeli officials are talking, and not about the weather. Final status issues are being discussed, though they are not being resolved.
